March 23, 2006

2:44 PM

With the increasing number of stupid call outs on MetaTalk of late, the general lowering of the standards of debate in MeFi and seemingly more and more attacks on #1 and #292 for their admin decisions, I respectfully and tentatively suggest that now may be the time to close off new user sign-ups for a while.
posted by Effigy2000 to etiquette/policy at 2:44 PM (130 comments total)

I suggest this for three reasons at the very least.

1. When getting a new account here was a rare event, people appreciated the fact they were able to join. As a result, trolls and people being flippant and abusive towards other users were far less in number.

2. After signups closed just as soon as they opened, all the existing users were able to get aqquainted with the new users. As someone who kept missing out but continued to lurk, I noticed that while there was a temporary spike in angry threads just after a new intake of members, this quickly cooled down as the community righted itself.

3. Closing new sign ups would eliminate one of the more spurious allegations against mathowie's modding style; that his decisions are based on the size of his pocketbook, and not what is good for the community.

As a member who only got in after paying his $5, I appreciate the irony in saying that we should close off paid sign ups for a little while. I acknowledge that there are manynew users signing up now who contribute positively to the community. But for all those users, it seems to me that there are just as many who are coming here to cause trouble.

Also, I apologise if this has been discussed before.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:44 PM on March 23, 2006

Getcher sockpuppets now boys.
posted by orthogonality at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2006

No. It's not the new users who are the problem.
posted by Eideteker at 2:48 PM on March 23, 2006

Dear Sir,

new users = income.
no new users = elitist.

End of argument.
posted by reklaw at 2:51 PM on March 23, 2006

Also, I apologise if this has been discussed before.

Only about 500 times. Did you even check?
posted by languagehat at 2:54 PM on March 23, 2006

I suggest we just eliminate all users that cannot do a split.
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:58 PM on March 23, 2006

orthogonality writes "Getcher sockpuppets now boys."

You wouldn't want you only ID to be banished to Siberia.

Seriously though I wish we could think of someway to limit signups in a non monetarily way without closing them all together. IMO Noobs aren't the problem, it is the sheer volume that is the problem. Noobs are seeing bad examples from other Noobs. The last week or so the planets must have been in alignment or something because I've seen several comments in Ask that made me think "Whoa, that doesn't seem like it belongs here" and going to the users page reveals that this is their third comment and they signed up that morning. Too many Todd Lokkens all at once.
posted by Mitheral at 3:00 PM on March 23, 2006

New users aren't the problem by and large. Very few ever touch MetaTalk.
posted by mathowie at 3:07 PM on March 23, 2006

You know what though? I could off new users for the month of April, as an experiment, and see if things pick up. I suspect there won't be much of any change.
posted by mathowie at 3:08 PM on March 23, 2006

Looks like an old user to me.

But hey, it looks like FEG2k's got a lower user number than I do. GET 'IM, BOYS!
posted by Eideteker at 3:09 PM on March 23, 2006

Ooh! Make signups a lottery game! You pay your $5, we stick your name in a hate, we pull 20 a week. No luck? Don't worry, you can play another $5 next week!

And that's what we like to call value-add.
posted by cortex at 3:10 PM on March 23, 2006

"...stick your name in a hat..."

Get your Freudianism outta my face.
posted by cortex at 3:11 PM on March 23, 2006

MetaFilter: we stick your name in a hate.
posted by Mid at 3:23 PM on March 23, 2006

You know what though? I could off new users for the month of April, as an experiment, and see if things pick up. I suspect there won't be much of any change.

That'll be interesting. So, what sort of yardstick are we all gonna be using to determine whether things are better, worse, or indifferent? 'Cause you know, the people who have clamored for signups to close will probably all say things are better, other people will say things got stale, etc.

I wonder if just letting signups continue but keeping people from posting/commenting for a month instead of a week might not be a better solution for keeping out noise and self-links (which, just like "please close signups," has been suggested before).
posted by Gator at 3:53 PM on March 23, 2006

I wonder if a month would be long enough to allow any real changes to manifest.
posted by crunchland at 3:58 PM on March 23, 2006

Don't cut off new members. Just don't allow them to post.

Anyone ever think of that?
posted by scarabic at 4:02 PM on March 23, 2006

If I can, over the course of a full day, not ask myself "Self, what is a 14-year-old girl from LiveJournal doing commenting in AskMetafilter?" then the experiment has been a success.

I agree with Matt's suspicion that it won't have much impact, though.
posted by Ryvar at 4:03 PM on March 23, 2006

Ryvar writes "'Self, what is a 14-year-old girl from LiveJournal doing commenting in AskMetafilter?'"


She's getting ready to self-link to her Girl Scout Cookie selling web page.
posted by orthogonality at 4:09 PM on March 23, 2006

That was such an awesome typo. Thank you. Now I have coffee in my nose. You bastard.
posted by loquacious at 4:11 PM on March 23, 2006

If he's actually offing new users, I'm all for it. Sign up, and step in the booth.
posted by boo_radley at 4:11 PM on March 23, 2006

Or just prevent new users from posting in Metatalk for longer, say a month, if it's such a problem.
posted by loquax at 4:15 PM on March 23, 2006

Shut off new memberships forever, entirely, with the exception of celebrities and other beautiful people. And charge all existing members $5 a year membership fee. Hey, I'd pay it.
posted by Jimbob at 4:29 PM on March 23, 2006

I wonder if a month would be long enough to allow any real changes to manifest.

No, it wouldn't. And it would make it too easy to declare afterwards (though I don't mean to imply that this is mathowie's thinking in suggesting it) that 'well, we tried that, and it didn't work' in future.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:29 PM on March 23, 2006

Make the font of their posts and comments very very small, and very close to the background color of the page. As you earn seniority, your words get bigger until they're too big to read, like quonsar's dot.
posted by fleacircus at 4:36 PM on March 23, 2006

Sheesh, dont you people get it....ok when I am allowed to, I'm making a MeTa FPP. We need to talk
posted by wheelieman at 4:43 PM on March 23, 2006

"I wonder if a month would be long enough to allow any real changes to manifest."

Yeah, especially since the site hasn't changed all that much from what it was years ago.
posted by mischief at 4:52 PM on March 23, 2006

Yeah, especially since the site hasn't changed all that much from what it was years ago.

This is true, and a good thing, and we shouldn't lose sight of it. Meta* still rocks.

It's not the new users who are the problem.

Most new users aren't a problem, just as most old users aren't either. Many of the perceived (by me, at least) problems that have cropped up in recent times are skewed towards new users, though, in most cases not because they are Bad People, but because they haven't taken the time to learn about the norms (such as they contentiously are) of the community, or the internet itself, and just kind of stumble around for a while going 'wha? why? howwwww?', presumably until they get their sea legs. That's cool and fine, and as it should be.

Though I've militated a bit for closing signups in the past, I think I've changed my mind, in part because I assume it's Matt's main revenue stream from the site, and I don't want to see him lose that.

But I also think that laissez faire with regards to the growth of the userbase is becoming increasingly inadequate, and things will increasingly spin out of true in future with unchecked growth. I've made some suggestions in recent threads how I think that can be managed.

I don't think closing signups is a good answer. But closing them for say, 3 months, might help to stabilize things, if it was done in combination with what I suggested here, most recently.

Just my 2 bits, of course.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:02 PM on March 23, 2006

Maybe Matt should just close Metafilter for a month. We could all take a deep breath, think of something worthwhile to say, and be fresh and ready to go on May 1st.
posted by Roger Dodger at 5:11 PM on March 23, 2006

Maybe Matt should just close Metafilter for a month.

And just where the heck am I supposed to get my wacky Google Video links from in the meantime?
posted by Gamblor at 5:33 PM on March 23, 2006

Let's just delete the unused accounts. Think of all the bandwidth we'd save!
posted by docgonzo at 5:49 PM on March 23, 2006

Maybe Matt should just close Metafilter for a month. We could all take a deep breath, think of something worthwhile to say, and be fresh and ready to go on May 1st.

I would laugh my ass off when the first 1000 posts/comments were all metatalk posts/comments and they were all "[user x] needs a timeout."
posted by shmegegge at 5:57 PM on March 23, 2006

also, I think the problem we're all perceiving is ignorance on the part of new users and plain-old mean-spiritedness on the part of many users. this idea does not solve either of those problems.
posted by shmegegge at 5:58 PM on March 23, 2006

A third way between doing nothing and closing the site to new memberships would be to raise the signup fee.
posted by nyterrant at 6:15 PM on March 23, 2006

I suggested this one back like 18 months ago:

Raise the signup fee to $10. Limit the number of new completed signups (meaning Matt actually gets the $10) to 1000 per three months.

Matt gets up to $40k/year from signups, maybe the tide is stemmed a little, maybe not.
posted by Ryvar at 6:22 PM on March 23, 2006

Limit them how? First come?
posted by scarabic at 6:30 PM on March 23, 2006

Eideteker: It's not the new users who are the problem.

Hallelujah.
posted by LarryC at 6:30 PM on March 23, 2006

scarabic: yes. First 1000 in the door each quarter.
posted by Ryvar at 6:36 PM on March 23, 2006

How about a two tiered posting system with a probationary pay-per-post period, $10 per post and $5 for comments, length to be determined, after which each graduate thereof receives full and free entitlements.

In addition, members signed up before the current regime get a beer mug engraved with their nom de MetaFilter or oak leaves or something, the more the lower their number.
posted by y2karl at 6:49 PM on March 23, 2006

What about mentoring new people (ha, semi-new user myself, but long, long, long, time lurker) or screening their posts for the first 20, 30 posts or so.

What if you had a dedicated group of members who can either okay or reject new user FPP's and then offer advice as to why the ones that are rejected tanked.
posted by obeetaybee at 6:52 PM on March 23, 2006

They get their name engraved more for having a lower number? What are we talking here? Like, longer or deeper? Or just more oak leaves?
posted by klangklangston at 6:54 PM on March 23, 2006

ok, you know what? I'm going to do something constructive, and save metafilter at the same time.

there are a lot of reasons why garbage questions are asked by newbies, and a lot of reasons why the hate fests and personality wars on this site go the way they do.

for the newbies:

we need the faq updated, and we need faq pages prominently linked on the site. the great thing about this is that we can all update the faq and therefore improve the quality of the document itself, which is in desperate need of an overhaul.

example: "How do you modify your Profile?" is now a moot question.
"Do I need to register?" is a moot question, and justly has no link to click, but why is it there at all?
"What is a godwin?" isn't that frequently asked anymore, but either way it should link to the wikipedia article on the subject. it doesn't.
"what does fpp mean?" ditto, except we should write a short article saying "it stands for front page post" and then link to it.
blahblahblah on and on and on. the wiki has PROBLEMS.

one of those problems is navigation. it is a pain in the ass to navigate that thing for answers to a specific question. I have no idea how to find out about the periods in obit threads from that faq, if it's even possible, other than clicking any link that MIGHT mention it but probably doesn't, and continuing to click various links until I stumble on it.

So the first thing that needs to happen on that page is to have a better heirarchical structure organized by types of information people are likely to look for.

example: 1. metafilter guidelines
1a. carved in stone rules and their punishments.
1b. rules of thumb and expected reactions.
1c. good things to consider when making a post or comment.
2. the subsites of metafilter and their functions.
2a. metafilter proper (or the blue)
2b. metatalk (or the gray)
2c. ask metafilter (or the green)
2d. projects (or the hideous)
3. frequently asked questions for the noobs.
3a. you better have checked here before taking your question to meta, bitch.

4. you get the idea.

as it stands, the table of contents is a long list that, while remarkable for having been made at all and certainly a wonderful resource, isn't that easy to navigate for answers to a specific question, unless that question is one of the 13 in-jokes listed that don't really need much explanation (with a couple exceptions). Yes, I know that it's got a heirarchical structure, but it's not as well thought out as it could be. Most importantly, the gray areas about what's allowed and what's tolerated and what's not a RULE per se, but will drive the entire community crazy isn't clearly explained at all. the wiki just links to the guidelines, which are less than informative themselves.

which brings me to my next point: the guidelines. they need a link to the wiki, or rather, several links to key wiki pages. there are places where the site links to the wiki, but only links to the front page of the document, which is less than helpful due to the wiki's above-mentioned difficulty to navigate. the "post a link" page should have clear and prominently displayed links to key wiki pages that explain what will get you banned, what will be deleted, what will tend to earn ire from other mefites, what will be frowned on but not necessarily deleted and exceptions to all of the above. the "post to meta" link should have similar links to wiki pages detailing all the injokes, explaining about server issues, explaining the difference between a worthwhile callout and a bad one, and should have some declaration of mathowie's position regarding new signups and other issues that frequently come up and often require a link to a solitary comment in a long gone meta thread to answer. example: "#1 doesn't like political flamewars, but has no intention of eliminating all politics from the site or starting a politics subsite. it has been asked, and that's the answer." we could also do with a wiki page explaining what trolling is, and how it differs from just being an asshole.

we also need a different way to search the archives. yahoo is a pain in the ass way to search for things, because you really have no idea what the link is to by the yahoo link title and the weird algorythm they use to excerpt text from a page. I don't know how to fix this, but if someone says they can't find where their question was answered, there's a chance that it's because yahoo is a little confusing to search through.

the second to last thing we need is a metatalk category for the wiki. that way we can post to metatalk to discuss making alterations to the wiki and find out what people think. I could post a whole diatribe about how news and politics threads should be avoided at all costs, but if the tribe thinks it's a bad idea for me to push my agenda on the wiki, then I can talk about it in meta with everyone. better yet, if someone finds something they don't like about the wiki, instead of getting into some kind of war on the wiki itself, any disagreements can be discussed in meta. now, there really hasn't been any serious fighting about the wiki that I'm aware of, but if it's a more integrated part of the site, it might be.

the last thing we need is for the wiki to be editable only by those with a metafilter account.

what all this boils down to is a need to more clearly delineate what is and isn't acceptable. we all know that pepsiblue is a bad idea, but there's no way to find that out on the wiki or in the guidelines unless you already know the term pepsiblue, and new members could easily not know that when they start making posts. further, the list of what makes a bad post basically just says "no self-link, no trolling, and no non-linking posts." there's a lot missing from that list. there isn't even a list to the wiki on that page, to let the wiki do the work of explaining site nuances.

for the older cranks among us: well, that's up for debate, but I think clearly linking to wiki pages on things that aren't cool to do in a comment right by the comment box and then enforcing those things would do it. I'm not talking about some kind of curmudgeonly totalitarian banning of every jerk who gets angry in a thread or anything, but there needs to be something to discourage assholery and there are simply too many users to get lost in for public opinion to be that thing anymore. this would be helped if we had clear links to wiki pages detailing bad behavior, so that if some dickwad posts to meta wanting to know why he got timeout, someone could say "because you did THIS, which is clearly mentioned HERE as not being okay." I think the idea of deleting comments more often, and tying punishments to deletions is a good idea. I think stavros' idea of using some of the SAForums punishments is also good. I would add that if the admins could have a little checkbox marked "do not punish" that they could check for extremely minor or understandable deletions, that would hopefully eliminate the unmerited timeouts and banninations. (like when someone makes ans askme answer that's just a little too chatty.) but that's just...

my $.02
posted by shmegegge at 6:56 PM on March 23, 2006

fuck, that was long. but I'm right. you'll see, I'm totally the rightest.

and yes, I intend to work on the wiki myself, instead of just saying someone should.
posted by shmegegge at 6:57 PM on March 23, 2006

I don't think restricting/ending new memberships would help anything in the short/medium term. The current problem(s), if they really even exist, seem to have to do with a kind of critical yelly mass that's formed.

Permabanning the people most responsible for doling out abuse, or, sadly, attracting too much negative attention (even if it isn't entirely their fault) would be way more effective.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:58 PM on March 23, 2006

It's a website. There will be comments you don't like.

Don't read them.

Instead of putting all this effort in to "solutions" to the "problem" that people get offended, go volunteer at a soup kitchen or go see a movie.
posted by orthogonality at 7:03 PM on March 23, 2006

shmegegge: that was awesome.
posted by brain_drain at 7:56 PM on March 23, 2006

Ryvar's idea seems pretty decent.

What I don't understand are the new users who have no grasp of MetaFilter at all, as vague and subjective as its mores may be. It's a shame that it's not technically possible (I assume) to make it impossible to comment anywhere on the site without having spent a good while reading MetaFilter and digging through MetaTalk (maybe I'm a goody two-shoes, but I remember reading oodles of MetaTalk drivel discussion before I dared to comment, and that seemed to be the norm for new users then; now you get folk who have scanned the front page a couple of times splurging a fiver to post something wildly inappropriate in a wildly inappropriate style, with the LOL and the Dugg! and the how's-your-father?) For some reason that I can't put my finger on, I blame AskMeFi for all of this, even though it's a prissy little love-in.
posted by jack_mo at 7:58 PM on March 23, 2006

go volunteer at a soup kitchen or go see a movie.

Yes, well. How many hours did you spend coding Metafilthy, by the way, Mr Kettle?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:00 PM on March 23, 2006

The way I percieve it is that while some new users are a problem, and while yes, many do not touch MeTa, the older users calling out new users is leading to a whole lot of MeTa posts where people are labelling the call out as stupid.

Example 1; A new user who signed up to "run an experiment" on the MeFi community. This probably wouldn't have happened if new user sign up's were a rare event.

Example 2; cribcage accusing mathowie of making admin decisions based on wanting more money, a claim which admitedly no one but mathowie himself could prove correct or otherwise, but which comes across as nothing less than an outright character attack on an admin whom I, and many others, think has been pretty even handed in time outs, bans, deletions and the like.

Example 3; when rxrfrx rightly called out a new user for being a spammer pre-emptively. This is an example of how an old user called out a new user who ultimately deserved to be banned. I argue the chances of Zarisa having ever signed up at all back when sign ups where a rare phenomena are next to none, if not nil. She'd probably have missed the chance and ultimately this call out would never have been needed.

Example 4: Just another example of a relatively new user getting called out by a relatively old user for being a tool.

The list goes on. Bear in mind I'm not debating the merits of any of these call outs, but that I think the sheer amount of them popping up on MeTa suggests that the "angry spike" I refer to in my original post isn't settling down, merely continuing.

This is why I suggested that we try stopping new user sign ups for a while. I think the experiment mathowie suggests is a good one, but it probably does need to go for two or three months at least to be truly testable.

At the very least, even if we don't do this, we need to do something, I think, because at present most of MeFi and many new MeTa threads is one big snark after another.

But of course, no matter what we do, it seems it's bound to be hated. Oh well. Twas just a suggestion.
posted by Effigy2000 at 8:05 PM on March 23, 2006

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "Yes, well. How many hours did you spend coding Metafilthy, by the way, Mr Kettle?"


Yeah, but I wasn't bitching and whining about "Mefite X says things I don't like". There's a real -- god this is overused, but what the hell -- a real zen to working on a coding problem, to find elegant and efficient solutions. There's a real satisfaction in knowing several hundred people use it because it makes visiting metafilter better for them. The cost is amortized across all those satisfied users. something's accomplished.

Devising ban schemes to get rid of trolls -- well, that's never worked in the history of the Internet. No accomplishment, no zen.
posted by orthogonality at 8:09 PM on March 23, 2006

It's a website. There will be comments you don't like.

Don't read them.

Nice trick! How do you manage to find out which comments you won't like so you can skip over them? Do you subscribe to a service of some kind that flags them with little doodie icons?
posted by scarabic at 8:10 PM on March 23, 2006

Yeah, but I wasn't bitching and whining about "Mefite X says things I don't like".

You mischaracterize substantive discussion negatively in order to make a point. Poor form.

a real zen to working on a coding problem

Fair enough, and yes, I am aware of this experience. I've written my fair share of code, for what it's worth. But it's arrogant to say that the way you get zen flow is better than the way others achieve it. Perhaps the give and take of ideas in discussion is the way some people achieve that state, or merely have fun.

Not only that, but if the discussion is intended to make Metafilter better for everyone, it's not even different in terms of intended results from the output of your coding.

An important corollary, in fact, is that you are the only person who can accept kudos for your work, whereas if any good comes from the discussion, everyone involved can feel that they've done some good for the community.

I leave you to guess which process I place higher value on.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:16 PM on March 23, 2006

jack's spot on -- It took me ages to make my first posts as well. The money changes things. Was it Malcolm Gladwell who told the anecdote about the nursery school that started fining parents for being late to pick up the kids? Before long, the number of late parents went up, because the money took away the responsibility; they'd paid to be late.

It's the same with comments. When it takes you months to get your login, you treat it very carefully because you really don't want to get banned and go through all that again. You actually read MeTa before weighing in.

Now? Some people pay $5 and laugh. Out loud.
posted by bonaldi at 8:21 PM on March 23, 2006

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "An important corollary, in fact, is that you are the only person who can accept kudos for your work,"

Well, not quite true, I got a lot of good suggestions for improvements and a lot of help -- and I acknowledge all of those in the help page/manual.

"Not only that, but if the discussion is intended to make Metafilter better for everyone, it's not even different in terms of intended results from the output of your coding. "

Sure, sure. It's just this is what, the 10th time this discussion has come up in the last year? and sure, I'll take part in it. and I'm glad you take part in it.

But I don't expect anything to come of it. Piddle, twiddle, and resolve but nothing's ever solved.
posted by orthogonality at 8:22 PM on March 23, 2006

Yeah, but I wasn't bitching and whining about "Mefite X says things I don't like".

Not in this thread. Jesus.

On a slightlyfar more mature note, I'd be more than happy to help out with the Wiki in any way I could.
I know I've been a member for less than five months, but I like to think I have a pretty good grasp of MeFi, and could help with seeing things from a n00b's POV.
IMO, if it helps new members, it helps everyone.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:24 PM on March 23, 2006

For some reason that I can't put my finger on, I blame AskMeFi for all of this, even though it's a prissy little love-in.

I agree, although it's no fault of Matt or Jessamyn's. AskMetafilter seems to get a LOT more popular press in traditional media than the rest of the site, so more eyes are drawn to it. Secondly, every damn last idiot - which includes me and probably the rest of you at various points - believes that they are qualified to answer nearly any question on any topic. So they pay $5 for the right to toss in their $.02.

Metafilter is going to drown in twopence.
posted by Ryvar at 8:27 PM on March 23, 2006

Devising ban schemes to get rid of trolls

OK, more. I guess you're referring to my recent suggestions, so I'll respond accordingly.

I wasn't suggesting ban schemes to get rid of trolls -- you are correct in saying that that will never work, human nature being what it is.

But you can limit their influence and damage by making bad behaviour (and trolling is merely one kind) have consequences, which is only rarely and haphazardly the case now.

Several times I've given the SA forums as a counterexample to show that it can work. Of the more than 50,000 users there, I would say the vast majority are in their early 20's or teens. The moderation scheme that Lowtax and his mods have in place, on which I've modelled my suggestions to some extent, keeps it running incredibly smoothly, given the teen angst dripping off the place.

Like shmegegge (I think) said in one of the other threads, I wouldn't want Mefi to be like SA in any way, other than some kind of consequences for assholery.

I've been given a timeout at MeFi, years ago, and I deserved it (but my transgression'd barely raise an eyebrow these days). A day or two and an apology to Matt and the community, and I was back. No biggie, but I didn't do that sort of stupid shit anymore.

It works, if you don't try, as you seem to be, to think in terms of all or nothing.

On preview: Sure, sure. It's just this is what, the 10th time this discussion has come up in the last year? and sure, I'll take part in it. and I'm glad you take part in it.

And am I. If it wasn't fun, we wouldn't do it. The discussion is in some ways the goal, if you look at it with your head tilted the right way. That's one reason I fuking hate the word 'callout' -- because it presupposes some result output. That's almost never the case -- we discuss (bad actions or ponies or whatever), and through that process we form a common understanding (or agreement to disagree) that fuzzy-logic navigates the sitezeitgeist. Sometimes Matt does something about something, and a thread has an output, but rarely.

The expectation that that should always happen drives 'callout' mentality, and it does nothing but frustrate everyone.

Damn, I've had way too much coffee today.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:28 PM on March 23, 2006

It's the same with comments. When it takes you months to get your login, you treat it very carefully because you really don't want to get banned and go through all that again. You actually read MeTa before weighing in.

Goddamn, yes.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:35 PM on March 23, 2006

I think I've changed my mind about timeouts and bans. Let's just crucify 'em instead!


posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:46 PM on March 23, 2006

(Holy shit, it looks like imageshack.us is now making you click some fucking interstitial ad image to get through to the actual image that's thumbnailed. Fuck that noise. Sorry.)

Also, I haven't really changed my mind. Maybe we could save the crucifixions for meetups.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:51 PM on March 23, 2006

The funny thing, stav, is that while we seem to agree about the nature of the problems Metafilter is facing - in this and the previous thread - we have completely different approaches. I view SomethingAwful as a jackbooted hellhole run by Nazis and populated by masochistic cretins willing to put up with that sort of shabby treatment, and I only read it - I've never been chastised or banned. I've seen how they treat people over there and I can't imagine why any user would be willing to tolerate that. Even worse, slapstick drop-of-the-hat moderation with no real consequence results in more people acting up - when you treat people like children, they begin to act like it. End result: less truly intelligent people like dhartung and paulsc hanging around because of a lower signal:noise ratio.

Banning at the drop of a hat with the implicit knowledge that the person in question will waltz right back in the door creates a system where people continually test to see how much they can get away with, because there are no true consequences for failure. The popular perception that when Matt perma-bans someone, he actually means it, is I think a big component in the glue holding this community together.

It's the same with comments. When it takes you months to get your login, you treat it very carefully because you really don't want to get banned and go through all that again. You actually read MeTa before weighing in.

This is the corollary to what I'm saying.

What I don't have an answer to is the problem the new 'be nice' reminder attempts to address. To me it seems like our hazing system needs to be if anything strengthened, but the last thing Metafilter needs is an 87th dios callout - those threads are starting to turn community-harmingly poisonous because the recurring personalities are trapped in Sartre's version of Hell. How do you solve both simultaneously?

Asthma attack over, bed calls.
posted by Ryvar at 8:55 PM on March 23, 2006

I view SomethingAwful as a jackbooted hellhole run by Nazis and populated by masochistic cretins willing to put up with that sort of shabby treatment, and I only read it - I've never been chastised or banned.

Heh. There's something to be said for that view, too, particularly in GBS. I've been a goon (by name if not nature) since 2000, I think, but I've only commented a handful of times. It's pure spectacle for me.

I think that most of the users at SA actually are children (teenagers, at least), and there is seeming arbitrariness of some bans and probations there, but I think that for the most part it's the reasonable reaction to their userbase demographic, and it works well to keep the place on an even keel. It's what, the 3rd biggest forum on the entire net, after 4chan and something else? Keeping something that size from spinning totally out of control is a pretty admirable achievement, even if there's a bit of the old jackboot to it, perhaps.

I dunno. I hear what you're saying. I still think a kinder, gentler, but no less take-no-bullshit policy similar to SA's in some ways, given the degree to which I trust mathowie and jessamyn not to go POWERMAD, would work, and help both them and us. For reasons I've gone on about far too much the last couple of days.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:05 PM on March 23, 2006

Effigy2000: "member since: July 18, 2005"

Fuck off, elitist newbie.

How about all y'all who bitch Metafilter is going downhill a) concentrate on posting some good content yourselves or b) STFU and go infest kuro5hin or Dailykos or whatever or even GYOFB?
posted by davy at 9:07 PM on March 23, 2006

Jesus, davy, way to miss the completely miss the point. Here, have a cookie†.





† where 'cookie' = merciless beating with a cluestick.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:12 PM on March 23, 2006

(OK, if he read the initial post then just leapt to the bottom to comment without reading the thread, I guess I can see the 'bitching' thing.... )
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:15 PM on March 23, 2006

man, orthogonality's comment about not reading comments you don't like feels like some kind of a derail to me. maybe it's because he fights with people all the time, and is also posts more than his fair share of inflaming comments. I guess "ignore it" is an easy thing to say when you don't do it yourself and you're also responsible for what you're telling people to ignore.
posted by shmegegge at 9:29 PM on March 23, 2006

Hey, shegegge - you don't like it, ignore it, man.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:36 PM on March 23, 2006

ignore what? I didn't even read it, it bothered me so much.
posted by shmegegge at 9:39 PM on March 23, 2006

I've noticed that ortho uses irony as a rhetorical device on MeFi, so now I just assume he means the opposite here as well. He's much more palatable that way.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:45 PM on March 23, 2006

What the hey, I'm on a roll.
posted by Eideteker at 9:53 PM on March 23, 2006

Eideteker, excellent.
posted by orthogonality at 10:07 PM on March 23, 2006

*As a newbie...*

I recently got upset at someone I perceive to be a recurrent offender in terms of noise/content ratio (dios). I got called out on it, I fought the callout as an argument between the new and the old, I fought the law and the law won, etc....Point is, when I relaxed and looked objectively at the situation I realized I had done the old "see comment and skip" (Don't ask me how I learned this skill so quickly, I'm a MetaProdigy).

What really shifted my paradigm was looking through his comments extensively. I realized, like a lot of people who have been here a long time before I was, that my issue was with my perception of the quality of his contributions rather than the quality of the contributions as they stand.

Can't a lot of people's legitimate frustrations can be attributed to those who come to blatently abuse Metafilter (Self links, spammers, you get the idea)?

I don't know what the solution is, but I would guess that most newbs will fall into line with what is expected of the community if asked correctly. I realize this isn't anyone's obligation explicitly, but really it's everyone's obligation assuming you really care about the community which has been nurtured here. I think most legitimate new users might need some guidance, with the silk glove (or steel studded silk glove as seen fit), but I think the ban-hammer should fall hard on those who drop a few meaningless comments over a month and then post to "THE BEST LINKFARM EVAR".

Maybe a vouch-for system would work? An un-official mentor system? An extra sharp pitchfork and torch system for adwhores?

(Somewhat afraid to post this...See, the gentle burnination works!)
posted by rollbiz at 10:51 PM on March 23, 2006

I don't think any change to signup procedures is called for at all, however..

Cutting off new memberships for a month would be useless. For one, as many have mentioned, you can't measure the change, especially in such a limited time. Also, unless you cut off new memberships for a significant percentage of days per year you simply won't trouble the problem cases in the least.

You could have a 5-day process.. Like you request an account, and a user name and password are reserved, then you have to come back 4 more times, separated by at least 24 hours each time, and sign in. Only after you have been able to sign in through a captcha 5 times do you get any account privileges.

This wouldn't do much to stop a determined spammer, but it will discourage casual users who don't plan on becoming part of the community. The determined spammers are so easy to ban and so profitable that I'm not sure why anybody worries about them.
posted by Chuckles at 10:54 PM on March 23, 2006

You know what needs to happen? Users need to take responsibility for their actions and grow the fuck up. No five day waiting periods, no lotteries, no closure of signups.
posted by Eideteker at 11:18 PM on March 23, 2006

Why don't we just make memberships cost $40,000.

Matt will still get one per year.
posted by scarabic at 12:08 AM on March 24, 2006

Yeah, but it will be 40,000 people who got together to buy a shared account.
posted by dg at 12:20 AM on March 24, 2006

no new users = elitist.

You say that like it's a bad thing but this website is supposed to be about the best of the web. If the quality of both links and discussion is being impacted by casual driveling by new members (and that is yet to be fully established) then why not act to protect standards?
posted by biffa at 3:13 AM on March 24, 2006

While I'd be horrified to see MetaFilter moderation policies become similar to Something Awful's, I think that calling it a "jackbooted hellhole run by Nazis and populated by masochistic cretins willing to put up with that sort of shabby treatment" is way off the mark. If it weren't for that moderation policy, SA would be a blasted hellscape with nothing but catchphrases and image macros in every thread. SA is primarily a comedy website, so the core audience and discussion material is a little less uptight than it is here, hence the need to stop dumb trends before they swallow everything whole.

The moderators and admins have managed to take a community of 50,000 (mostly) males who are (mostly) between the ages of 16 and 30 and somehow keep a signal to noise ratio as good as MetaFilter, which is a bunch of crusty old internet elitists who have probably used the phrase "netiquette" non-ironically.

You think they worry about self-linkers and spammers? Hell no. They are mercilessly crushed within ten minutes of posting their shit. People who do this:

hey guys i'm new here this is a great sight when do i get 2 make a post LOL

are put on probation for a few days or a week and I think that SA is better off for it.

As memberships grow, Matt and Jess may be forced to add more moderators or give more timeouts for dumb shit, and I think that it's ultimately a good thing. But closing sign-ups altogether for X number of weeks is a bad idea and one that will not solve any problems.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:57 AM on March 24, 2006

We-have-a-problem-here,-we're-not-sure-what-it-is-exactly,-but-we-are-positive-that-if-we-keep-deleting-comments,-closing-threads-and-making-new-rules-we'll-eventually-solve-it-Filter.
posted by quonsar at 4:24 AM on March 24, 2006

and what's your suggestion, quonsar?
posted by jessamyn at 4:44 AM on March 24, 2006

I was a lurker here for a long time before signups opened up again so take this as you will. Most of the solutions suggested here involve trying to control people (and apparently the people needing most control are from new signups - that's not what I see but it is easily testable) --- none of these people control solutions are likely to work. My own opinion is that the kinds of solutions that will aid this community be what it wants to be are solutions that evolve the site. That sounds wise but I haven't a clue what those solutions might be.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:49 AM on March 24, 2006

One more thing - the way to test whether the increase in bad posts/behavior is due to new signups is very easy to test (maybe not so easy in other ways). Simply cutoff access to the site from the already registered new signups (e.g. those registered in the past xx number of months or whatever) for a week and see if things get better -- or worse.
posted by bluesky43 at 4:52 AM on March 24, 2006

and what's your suggestion, quonsar?
posted by jessamyn at 4:44 AM PST on March 24

I asked him in another thread that if he's so unhappy with MeFi, why doesn't he start a competing website? No response, and I'd wager you won't get much of one either. I am opposed to comment deletion outside of AskMe, but bitching without suggesting improvements is passive-aggressive nonsense.

[posts picture of an elephant]
posted by Optimus Chyme at 4:52 AM on March 24, 2006

Yeah, I called quonsar on that in another thread and he had no response. He just likes bitching and moaning. Which is fine, but when he gets nasty, it's unpleasant as well as tedious.

Permabanning the people most responsible for doling out abuse, or, sadly, attracting too much negative attention (even if it isn't entirely their fault)

Christ, what a disgusting attitude. Do you also join in when you see a mob attacking somebody, on the principle that even if the person getting kicked didn't do anything wrong, they're a disruptive influence?
posted by languagehat at 5:53 AM on March 24, 2006

It all comes down to Mathowie's opting for the path of leastest resistance with enforcements and banninations being an off the cuff rather than a strictly followed philosophy. I don't know that I necessarily disagree with it considering that a balanced appeasement when necessary or smothering of particularly egregious behaviour when needed is the easier solution for crowd control from the point of view of a moderator.

But I essentially disagree with closing down the intake. It's like making a predetermination that anyone who hasn't signed up already must therefore be a negative force. That's ridiculous thinking for mine. It's behaviour that needs controlling as opposed to people, if that makes sense.

So I guess we'll meet here again in a few days to rehash it out and again mosey along with the status quo. I don't know that that's such a bad thing necessarily. However, despite my generally liking the individuals at times, the respective outrageous behaviour of such erstwhile semi-luminaries as Pretty_Generic and rothko are testament to the failure of too laissez faire an approach to moderation. There be a lesson in there t'would think.
posted by peacay at 6:42 AM on March 24, 2006

A couple of suggestions:

- Another new moderator or two. Seems like we've doubled in usership and posting volume since jessamyn was elevated, so another couple of trusted bodies wouldn't hurt.

- New members could still comment immediately, but would wait a minimum of two weeks before being eligible for a(n) FPP on the Blue.

- A new member's first three (or five, or ten...) FPP's would be submitted first to an approval queue, much like anonymous questions to AskMe. This might as well be retroactive to include those (like me) who've already signed up but have yet to have put up a Blue FPP. Votes from one or two mods could okay an FPP, or an additional set of trusted members could be enlisted to vet these newbie FPP's. Weeding out doubles, self-links, GYOBFW's, etc. before they hit the Blue should cut down on <wildassguess>95%</wildassguess> of newbie spankage. After reaching one's designated number of approved FPP's, the training wheels come off, and normal posting privileges are granted (with the usual moderation guidelines applicable).

These would give the n00bz a little extra mentoring, and help them (us) better understand the mechanics of the community. Unfortunately it does nothing to address the misbehaviour of longer-term members - maybe they should be thrown under quonsar's elephant. Repeatedly.
posted by hangashore at 6:49 AM on March 24, 2006

Instead of closing signups, prospective members should be required to register as "lurkers". Registered lurkers would be eligible for membership after ~2-3 months. This would ensure that new users have an understanding of the site, and cut way back on spammers. Of course, there wouldn't be any new users for the first 2-3 months of this policy, but it seems like Matt's OK with a break.
posted by grateful at 6:51 AM on March 24, 2006

I fail to see how closing new signups will help matters.

If there were some magic wand that you could wave that would prevent MeFites from responding to obvious troll attempts, THAT would help things. But user signups? C'mon.

Besides, I'm really tired of people bitching about how "MeFi is going down the tubes, oh no!" I mean, haven't people been predicting the death of Metafilter for, like, the last 9 years?
posted by Afroblanco at 7:08 AM on March 24, 2006

I mean, haven't people been predicting the death of Metafilter for, like, the last 9 years?

I was bitching about MetaFilter when it was still swimming in mathowie's balls!
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:14 AM on March 24, 2006

"Users need to take responsibility for their actions and grow the fuck up."

Yeah, start showing some tolerance and stop having a gas attack over everyone with a different philosophy about posting.

TOLERANCE!!!

{Brought to you by the Committee To Elect Dick Cheney}
{"I am Dick Cheney and I approved this commercial."}
{Some restrictions may apply.}
{Not available in all jurisdictions.}
{Shown to cause cancer in some mammals.}
posted by mischief at 7:17 AM on March 24, 2006

a bunch of crusty old internet elitists who have probably used the phrase "netiquette" non-ironically.

I wrote an essay about netiquette in high school.

I got an A, CHEESEDICK.
posted by cortex at 7:55 AM on March 24, 2006

How about a two tiered posting system with a probationary pay-per-post period, $10 per post and $5 for comments, length to be determined, after which each graduate thereof receives full and free entitlements.

This would no doubt introduce class system and the frailties that come along with it.

I joined right after 9/11. I made mistakes at some times, was flamed for some posts/comments at some times, was given kudos for my logical point of view at other times.

I dont find Meta has changed much since then. There are an incredible number of knowledgable, smart and witty people here. I moved back to Pakistan back in August '05 and the first thing I did was to bookmark Metafilter on my new home computer. Yes, there are the zingers and personal attacks but one can say that almost never is there a post which is completely devoid of a new point of view or piece of information. I love this place like the way it is. But I think that protectionism leads to policies which take more away than protect.
posted by adnanbwp at 9:01 AM on March 24, 2006

I couldn't sleep last night due to asthma, so I'm not sure this is entirely coherent, but here is the logic upon which my fear of new users rests:

Assumption 1. The average Metafilter user is more intelligent and articulate than the average poster on most Internet forums, messageboards, or newsgroups.

Assumption 2. The quality of Metafilter is directly linked with the intelligence of all its users and the lack of frequent, recurring¹ interpersonal hostility between core users.

Assumption 3. Open, low-cost signups present a minimal barrier-to-entry to the site.

Assumption 4. All other things being equal, the probability is that new users alerted to the existence of Metafilter by its increasing presence in the mainstream press will have an average intelligence more in line with the Internet as a whole, and not Metafilter as it stands today.

Ergo, there may be some merit to the idea that increasing barrier-to-entry will help prevent any loss in the quality of the site.

I realize that #1 is a large and possibly silly assumption, but outside of some "Is not!" "Is so!" over that assumption, I'm not sure where the flaw in my thinking is.


¹Infrequent, spontaneous interpersonal hostility is usually hilarious and a lot of fun. This is why I hate hostility crackdowns.
posted by Ryvar at 9:27 AM on March 24, 2006

I am inexplicably embarrassed to say that I agree with the footnote (from rya). The swarm of comments around posts found to be lacking is quite often hilarious (not the hostility so much but the wittiness is sometimes laugh out loud funny).
posted by bluesky43 at 9:51 AM on March 24, 2006

- A new member's first three (or five, or ten...) FPP's would be submitted first to an approval queue, much like anonymous questions to AskMe.

Yeah, this kind of approval queue idea, like many of the other suggestions here, has been brought up several times, but I still think it's a good idea (I'd probably limit it to just the first FPP, though). I don't know what the actual numbers are, but I'm wildly guessing that there's a relatively small number of FPPs per month that are from first-time users, so this idea shouldn't be all that much in the way of extra work for the mods. Probably much less than the approval queue for Anonymous AskMe, actually. I think it'd cut the number of spamming self-links considerably, if nothing else.
posted by Gator at 9:55 AM on March 24, 2006

Increasing the monetary barrier to entry might increase the proportion of new users who are looking for a return on their investment. Just a thought.
posted by expialidocious at 9:55 AM on March 24, 2006

I reckon the only newbies worth getting flustered about are those that read the anti-christian/anti-republican/anti-GWB abuse and think "wow - I'd sure love a piece of that action! I can't wait to be another useless fucking moron repeating the same shit!"

Bring something new and interesting to the table or shut the fuck up. Metafilter is about the links, the discussion is a corollary, if interesting chatter is generated then yay. When further links are posted after the FPP and a discussion branches out is when MeFi is at it's best. MeFi is at it's worst when the Usual Suspects get in each other's grills and start yammering on with their pointless digressions and petty arguments.

I have posted a hell of a lot less comments than many relative to me newbies simply because I don't feel the irresistable urge to stamp my name on a thread. Perhaps an occasional comment in a thread that is personally interesting or a "nice post" comment to let the poster know that it was appreciated. I don't think having 1000 MeFi posts inside of a year is that cool - I would still have more respect for some of the more old school MeFi peeps because they've earnt their laurels by being consistent. The cult of celebrity is rife on MeFi and it's certain people's desperate urge to be a "recognised" name that makes them stand out from the crowd.

Smedleyman and Bugbread are probably the standout positive new contributors in my mind - both of them balanced commentators and slow to rile (ish in Smedley's case ;) ). If I have forgotten to mention others my apologies but these two deserve beer and pancakes aplenty for their thoughtful additions. Several of the oldschool MeFites have also become better as time has gone by (yes you stav, you irascible old coot).

In short, there should be no problems with newbies as long as they don't just cut'n'paste "GeeDub sucks! User "X" sucks!" before they've earned their right to mouth off.
posted by longbaugh at 10:24 AM on March 24, 2006

davy writes "How about all y'all who bitch Metafilter is going downhill a) concentrate on posting some good content yourselves or b) STFU and go infest kuro5hin or Dailykos or whatever or even GYOFB?"

K5 is one of the things I'd like to not see happen here.
posted by Mitheral at 10:48 AM on March 24, 2006

Ponyfilter: can we get little doodie icons please?
posted by Sprout the Vulgarian at 10:59 AM on March 24, 2006

Here ya go, buddy.
posted by Gator at 11:08 AM on March 24, 2006

Why not "off" oldies for the month of April? Anyone under #17000 is a freeloader and has already had years to snark and cavil. A month in a rest home might be refeshing.
posted by Cranberry at 11:20 AM on March 24, 2006

Please Ignore:
posted by adnanbwp at 11:36 AM on March 24, 2006

Cranberry writes "Why not 'off' oldies for the month of April? Anyone under #17000 is a freeloader and has already had years to snark and cavil. A month in a rest home might be refeshing."


Now that's the first new, interesting suggestion I've seen in this thread.

How about a rotation: week one, the first quadrile of users can post, week two the second quadrile, etc. Let's see how Mefi looks different during each cohort's week.
posted by orthogonality at 11:37 AM on March 24, 2006

orthogonality: By post you mean can't post FPP and comments or can the rest of the 'quadriles' only post comments?

I think even though this is an interesting suggestion, it takes away the charm for most of us. I love that I can interact with the poster and other commenters if I have an opinion. The context of the post plays a big part though, if it is serious then I find mostly positive comments. Otherwise, there are enough smart asses in Meta to make a post haven for one-liners.
posted by adnanbwp at 11:43 AM on March 24, 2006

Ok, then let only the active quadrile post, and let anybody respond.
posted by orthogonality at 11:51 AM on March 24, 2006

Meh, why not just draw a chalk line down the middle of the house, a la "I Love Lucy"?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:57 AM on March 24, 2006

All else aside, I want to thank ortho for deploying cohort in the plural. For some reason that usage always brightens my day.
posted by cortex at 12:34 PM on March 24, 2006

Hey. Wait a second. Wait a god damned second!

Cohort. Drop the leading C, translate the rt to after the first o.

Ortho!

IT'S A TRAP!
posted by cortex at 12:48 PM on March 24, 2006

The simplest solution is to ban all users who joined after me.
posted by troybob at 1:23 PM on March 24, 2006

*counts on fingers*

I support troybob's resolution.
posted by cortex at 1:34 PM on March 24, 2006

Crotchety oldies.
posted by Cranberry at 2:31 PM on March 24, 2006

Huh. I agree with everything shmegegge said in that long-ass post except for the end-bit about harsher punishments.

MetaWikiReform!
posted by desuetude at 3:39 PM on March 24, 2006

Bring something new and interesting to the table or shut the fuck up. Metafilter is about the links, the discussion is a corollary, if interesting chatter is generated then yay.

I've always thought that the FPPs were about the links, but the guidelines read:

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

Has this changed recently? (or even not so recently and I've completely missed it).

As someone who's been visiting the site since 2001/2, and missed/ignored a variety of signup opportunities before finally signing up in 2004 (and paying the $5) I do feel that the amount of noise has increased. I still haven't posted an FPP because, in some ways, I still feel like I'm getting to know the site and am imposing a very high standard on myself because I want to contribute positively (which can be difficult to do at times, as some of my own comments show)

I fear that some new users feel that they have to post FPPs in order to get their 'money's worth' and with the increase in numbers if poor FPPs are left up then this in turn lowers the perceived standard of FPPs for other (mainly newer) users which results in a more FPPs of a lower standard (and so on).

I'd certainly favour a longer period of time before new users can comment and post after joining just to ensure that, as jack suggests, they have a vague grasp of what Metafilter is or at least what it's aiming to be.

The cult of celebrity is rife on MeFi and it's certain people's desperate urge to be a "recognised" name that makes them stand out from the crowd.

Longbaugh has a point here and there's a problem with some users getting away with behaviour that earns them a 'name' providing a model for other users, who want to do the same, to follow.
posted by drill_here_fore_seismics at 6:39 PM on March 24, 2006

Late to the party, as usual, but how about a sort-of-compromise? The total number of users could be capped at X (say 35,000 or something), mathowie switches over to an annual subscription system (say $5 or $10 per year), and any accounts that are not renewed are deleted, thus making room for new users by attrition. (Sockpuppet accounts pose a problem that would have to be dealt with somehow).

This way, mathowie gets a steady stream of income to support his family and our favorite site, the total traffic on the site is kept to a manageable limit, and there is some opportunity for new people to sign up as old ones drift away. There would probably be a waiting list for new signups, which might help prevent hit-and-run spammers as well.

When something is perceived to be scarce, it's usually perceived to be valuable, so maybe people who finally get their coveted MeFi membership would treat it with respect and live up to the high standards we all (ahem) aspire to.
posted by Quietgal at 7:43 PM on March 24, 2006

As a relatively new member, I count myself lucky that I didn't make any of the (now obvious) mistakes that are often made here. I know people should lurk. And I know people should read the guidelines.

But people don't read on the internet, especially not guidelines that look like terms and conditions. And many of the hallowed (worthwhile, valid) mores of Metafilter run counter to accepted practice on 99% of the web.

My proposal? No posting priveleges until newbies pass a 10 question quiz on acceptable use to show an understanding of the customs and philosophy of the site.

That would weed out the problems from new users who would otherwise be good members. And would be a service, because they wouldn't accidentally do something horribly inappropriate.
posted by visual mechanic at 9:28 PM on March 24, 2006

Another example of a new user contributing in a not so positive sort of way to the community. Albeit, this time the older using doing the call out is well justified in doing so.

Mathowie has called for people to be civil, and has even inserted a plea for civility under the comment box, but it hasn't happened. Sure, you may say that blaming 20k+ users for the problem is a strawman's argument, but certainly it is at least to some extent a valid one. Especially if, as languagehat said way up thread, this has been discussed at least 500 times before.

With this latest round in the breakdown of civility here, is now not the time to consider this seriously?
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:27 PM on March 24, 2006

As another new member, I have a few comments too.

1)MeFi needs a much more readable FAQ (and make it more prominent and just call it an FAQ.) The MeFi Wiki is a mess. It definitely needs to be formatted better. How about a more modern look. At present it looks like something banged out on an old typewriter long before computers were commonplace. And I don't understand why it is littered with all these ampersands and such. What is this and why am I seeing this? Am I missing something here? Yeah, I know it's coding stuff but why am I seeing it? To be honest, I've barely looked at the wiki because of all this.

2)Mistakes will be made. Count me in on that one. But I'm learning. It would help, though, if the old timers didn't rely quite so much on ambiguous statements where the sarcasm is obvious only to folks who have been here for quite a while. Like they used to teach you in english class, people can only judge by what they see on the screen (or piece of paper). We need to meet halfway -- new folks need to get the lay of the land before they shoot their mouths off too much, but old timers need to be a little less "clubbish" too.

3)Some of the old timers need to cut down on the condescension -- especially in the computer oriented topics. As I read somewhere recently, "sarcasm is the lowest form of instruction." We may not all do computer stuff for a living, but most of the folks around here seem pretty sharp. Mama didn't raise any dummies. ;)

4)I'm all for a certain amount of civility, but let's not turn the website into a tea party either. There's nothing wrong with a little rough and tumble arguing and banter. That's part of the fun, IMHO. And sometimes folks just need to get their asses kicked a bit. :> I'm sure the fickle finger of fate will land on my ass at times, too.

5)As far as tests, genuflecting, and/or kissing the ring of old timers before being allowed to post or comment, you have got to be kidding. Jeezus.

...anyway, thanks for listening. I'll be back (LOL).
posted by bim at 10:47 PM on March 24, 2006

Metafilter has doubled since membership became as simple as a five doillar donation, and the quality of discussion has definately suffered. Frst of all, it is common to wade through posts that are 250+ comments long, most of which is composed of snarking, bitching, and pee-contests. Certain topics, such as religion, race, or ethnicity have become catalysts for amazing out of hand free-for-alls.

Maybe raise the new member fee? The five dollar entrance fee to MeFi isn't elitism, unless you want to keep a lot of rural Haitian peasants away from the discussion. A $25 fee might deter a lot of sock puppeteers. I have no problem with Matt making a few bucks off the site as long as he seems to be ruling it with a strong sense of enlightened monarchy.

It is time for some attrition to take its toll... close off memberships for a while. I suggest allowing people to pay for access to Ask Metafilter, which is a reasonable approcah.
posted by zaelic at 8:39 AM on March 25, 2006

[pokes the fickle finger of fate into bim's anal ring]

Damn fine way of welcoming the n00bs, Bim! Tag, you're it!

---

Did The Well manage to avoid collapsing under the weight of mass stupidity, and if it did, how did it manage that feat?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 AM on March 25, 2006

fffsaid:

[pokes the fickle finger of fate into bim's anal ring]

Damn fine way of welcoming the n00bs, Bim! Tag, you're it!Did The Well manage to avoid collapsing under the weight of mass stupidity, and if it did, how did it manage that feat?

^^^
This must be my Exhibit A.

I rest my case.

It's no fun when it's this easy. It's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now pipe down old feller and get your finger out of my ass before I lose my patience with you. Keep it up and I'm going to sign the papers to stick your ass back in the nursing home.
posted by bim at 2:25 PM on March 25, 2006

The Well did manage to avoid collapsing under the weight, but only because it had two bars keeping it as exclusive as the closed-signup Metafilter: shonk-tastic interfaces (command-line or "web") and a monthly fee.

I think their bar was too high, because it ended up being far too elitist, cliquey and in the end, dull.

As for bim:
1. I don't agree. When people have to make the effort to learn something, they value it more highly. Get your finger out.

2. But "clubbish" just implies that you don't know what's going on. Which, as a noob, you don't.

3. Some of the new timers need to cut down on the sense of entitlement.

4. With you here.

5. Why do we have to be kidding?

Part of the dissonance here is the different perceived value of logins, I think. Mine took fucking ages to get; yours cost $5. If you get a bad rep, or everyone hates you, or you feel like trolling or spamming, hey, no great loss. If old-timers do, the cost is far higher.

That's why there is still a difference between old and new members, months after signups re-opened. The suggestions that new members have to do something to earn their posting rights beyond just paying comes from that, and equalising memberships in this way has to be a good thing.
posted by bonaldi at 2:50 PM on March 26, 2006

Bonaldi -- Your arrogance is truly astounding. I understand your concerns, but it's obvious that you and some of the other folks breathing the rare air here really feel that every bon mot that comes out of your mouths is priceless. And newer folks couldn't possibly have anything to say of such a high caliber as yourself. And how dare we even deign to have an opinion on such weighty matters as those in MetaTalk. Get over yourself, pal.

I'm looking at the questions you have posted and there's nothing particularly interesting or enlightening there as far as I can see. And quantity isn't necessarily any indicator of quality as far as a person's number of answers goes.

If you want to have a club where only folks who have been here as long as yourself sit around and talk only to each other and convince each other how brilliant you are, then stop talking about it and do it. Skip the farce of supposedly allowing other people to participate.

If you don't want new folks to ever post in MetaTalk, then fix it so that doesn't happen.

While MeFi is an interesting place, the world will not stop turning if the rest of us don't get into the country club or even if it collapses. I'm surprised you even lower yourself to speak to newer folks.

And for the record, I may not know everything about everything (as you apparently feel that you do), but I am far from stupid as you would seem to imply. I don't need your blessing or your approval to have an opinion. I don't need you to tell me what to think. And anything I had to prove educationally was taken care of long ago. If you don't agree, well, then that's just too damn bad. I can live with it. Trust me.

So next time you feel the need to pontificate about how special you are, you might just want to hold that thought. I don't know how anyone could even stand to be around or work with someone like you. You really are too much. And yes, you have got to be kidding.
posted by bim at 8:04 PM on March 26, 2006

You think I was being arrogant then, ickle n00b? You aint seen nothing. Hell, I can be so arrogant people wilt in front of my eyes. My arrogance is amazing, astounding and better than yours, you betya. Or something.

If you "understand my concerns", how come you can't manage -- even across seven sprawling paragraphs -- to address any of them? You're good at the ad homs, and you excel at outrage, but there's nothing else there.

I have never thought that what the older people had to say was more worthwhile, or that newer folks couldn't possibly have anything to say. Is that the chip on your shoulder talking, or did you forget your meds? In fact, if you removed the blinkers, you'd see that I said that sort of attitude is what killed the Well.

What I did say was that, like it or not, there is a difference between the older and newer users, and it's not fading with time, because the two sets of people have a different approach to the site (with a big exception for the people who waited for months/years and signed up as soon as Matt opened the pay-gate).

I've never wanted a club of only older users, but I would like it if people had to make a bit of an effort to join, yes. Because then they wouldn't act like utter dicks. Like, say, you.
posted by bonaldi at 8:29 PM on March 26, 2006

Oh, for Pete's sake!
posted by Effigy2000 at 1:47 AM on March 27, 2006

I guess I'm not worthy.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:38 AM on March 27, 2006

Wilt? I'm not even scorched. You've been reading too many comic books. Do you have a decoder ring too?

Sorry if I can't indulge you in your fantasy. You're not all that special. Return to planet earth, pal, where you're just a mere mortal like everyone else.

Obviously, you need MeFi to make you feel important -- superior to everyone else. Now THAT'S truly sad. Maybe you should get your validation elsewhere and spare us noobs your pompous ramblings, Bonaldi. You don't know dick. ;)
posted by bim at 3:02 AM on March 27, 2006

Decoder ring? No. Irony? Yes.

Since your third attempt at saying something in this thread is once again nothing but personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims, I think you've made my case better than I ever could. See ya around, my sweet Exhibit A.
posted by bonaldi at 5:30 AM on March 27, 2006

People hear what they want to hear. You are no exception. Complaining about "noobs" seems to be your calling in life. That's a personal attack in the broad sense of the term. But I guess you overlooked that, Bonaldi.

Perhaps you should spend less time complaining on MetaTalk and posting something of value instead. Come down and mingle with the little people sometime. Get your hands dirty. Talk about something other than computer geekery. It's a big world out there. You might learn something. I'll look forward to our next meeting. Until then....hugs and kisses, little man.
posted by bim at 6:02 AM on March 27, 2006

Stopping huge sections (user number <2 0k, etc) of the populace from posting / commenting for a couple of months sounds like a fun & interesting experiment. br>
please, please, please, please.... do it.
If only on the occasional week.
And only to see what happens.
posted by seanyboy at 8:43 AM on March 27, 2006

bim, you're coming off as a lot more obnoxious, and a lot less impressive, than I suspect you think you are. Your flames are sad, disordered collections of weak jabs; your thesis is non-existent; and you're proving bonaldi's point even as you believe yourself to be rebutting him.

You sound like a jackass. If you have any sense, stop it, and start working on, as you say, "posting something of value instead."
posted by cortex at 8:50 AM on March 27, 2006

Maybe y'all should just flag it and move on.
posted by davy at 7:36 AM on March 28, 2006